Skip to main content

tv   This Week in Defense  CBS  June 3, 2012 11:30am-12:00pm EDT

11:30 am
spending and a welcome to "this week in defense news," i'm vago muradian. a majority of americans want 4kv spendings than the pentagon or congress support according to a new poll. will their views be heard in washington? plus a powerful new film documents the troop surge in afghanistan from the perspective of a single marine platoon. first, full notion photos from platforms have become the most powerful tools in the u.s. military arsenal, allowing commanders to preanl watch military enemies and strike them but surveillance video can be shaky, fuzzy, blurry and jittery, making it difficult to pick out key intelligence. fixes these problems has been expensive.
11:31 am
that's where motion dsb comes in, a california startup company that has considered kena that can stabilize, sharpen, clarify and enlarge épgd do in real time. here to talk about the new technology is shawn vera, the ceo of motion sensor dvb. welcome. >> thanks very much. >> what your computer programs do is really fascinating, is really amazing and you're the only guys doing it in realtime. what are some of the things that it can do and how does it work? >> so, really, there are many problems with video. in fact, video suffers from a variety there can be resolution problems, and so our software really is a algar it im that can fix it all at once. >> you do it in real time. what are some of the limitations to that? what are the boundaries, processing issues, unju;h0@6cj%
11:32 am
issues from putting that kind of video through the pipeline and seeing it without any delay? >> all of the above. the secret sauce to what we do is we're able to combine the information from a massive number of video frames together, to basically rebuild your video on the fly as we go. that's a very big high performance computing challenge. all of the above, processing speed, input, all of those are time. the way we made it to real time is we leveraged the same chips that are used to video games are very well suited to do video processing. we leverage what are called gpus to do your processing. >> those are? >> graphic processing units. >> there are multiple different sorts of things that you guys do, right?
11:33 am
they're trying to figure out what is happening. >> it doesn't matter what platform it's coming off of, it can be a tower, a vehicle, an aircraft? >> that's right. our algarrisms can all depend on the platform. we're trying to get the most out of the camera they have and see better. because they need to provide intelligence to the person on the ground to help save lives, to help make decisions. >> you can create mosaics, can't you? >> the first priority is help the á7gitt$8qáter, and to reduce workload. what can we do with image process >> what are some of the other applications? i mean, obviously you're looking at it from an intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance perspective, the surveillance being the most important to real time. >> yes. >> what are some of the other applications to this technology? are we going to eventually see you commercial marketplace or back to the commercial marketplace? >> sure. luckily for us, there's lots of bad video everywhere. we started in the consumer market. i founded a company back in
11:34 am
2005 and then at the beginning of youtube. our opportunity we saw was half a billion phones take video and go to nicomedes tubar. that was our first step. >> you can put it to a point where people want to ur)uw >> absolutely. as it turned out the intelligence and law enforcement communities came to us and they said, well, you know, this is a great tool for consumers, but you could actually help us solve crimes. our first commercial market was really law enforcement, helping people do that csi thing to video where you could reconstruct, for example, the letters on a license plate of a bank robber or something like that. >> at what u improved your product and does that cue you up to now return it to the commercial marketplace or put it to other sorts of industrial application as well. >> well, i think working in the military sphere has been useful because it's a highly demanding marketplace. there's no other better éíg x7ef ÷h
11:35 am
the united states we're just about to start allowing unmanned aerial vehicles to fly in u.s. airspace and to be used in homeland security and law enforcement. so that's probably the first place you'll see the transition of our technologies to that application. but beyond that our technology can be plugged in to really essentially any camera system you have and that could be a mobile phone, that could be a surveillance camera. >> you guys obviously come from this from a nondefense background, sony, microsoft and other %e5ij:up)tups. how difficult has it been to break into the defense market and the rather complex world of military and government acquisition? >> it's certainly a challenge. i won't -- i won't argue that fact. i think one of the challenges is simply the business model challenge is that the government can typically be -- is used to buying something as v they're used to be paying contractors to sit in a chair
11:36 am
and do a job. they're not so much used to buying a product. so in silicon valley, we make products. i try to anticipate a market need and i try to build a product before my customer even knows that they need it. it's been a little bit of the reverse traditionally in the military market here where the military comes up with a requirement and then a defense contractor will start writing code and creating that ué](u which tends to have all the -- on the technology side, they tend to lag technology as opposed to anticipate it. >> what are some of the things that -- some of the lessons that you've learned from this process and what are some of the things the pentagon itself can be learning from contractors like you that come from the commercial sphere with really cutting-edge technology? >> i think the government is doing a much, much better job reaching out to small companies like ourselves, small businesses to look for innovation. i think the office of the secretary of defense has an entire rapid fielding office and congress has actually allocated specific funds toward small business innovation. i think they're doing a much,
11:37 am
much better job. at the same time the defense contractors are very open to working with new technology. they're really our partner. i mean, we make sophisticated but very focused piece of technology that is really only valued as a customer if it is plugged in to larger systems. so for us the primes are an excellent vehicle, our partner to bring this technology in. so i think things are changing. i think we're getting away from very stagnant programs of records that are very hard to change to much more of a rapid- fielding effort, especially as we move with the new budget towards special operations and joining us. we appreciate it. coming up what americans really think about defense
11:38 am
[ creaking ] [ male announcer ] trophies and awards lift you up. but they can also hold you back. unless you ask, what's next? [ zapping ] [ clang ] this is the next level of performance. the next level of innovation. the next rx. the all-new f sport. this is the pursuit of perfection.
11:39 am
congress to avoid triggering nearly $500 billion in additional defense cuts and house republicans trying to reverse defense cuts to date, a new poll suggests that a majority of americans want to see less money spent on national security. the survey of 665 randomly selected citizens in mid april by the stinson center, the program for public consultation and the center 'áj0@6cj% integrity found 67% of republicans and 90% of democrats want defense spending cut by an average of 18%. defense cuts proposed by the administration would cut military spending by about 6%. here to discuss the findings are matthew leatherman of the stinson center and steech paul of the program for consultation. gentlemen, welcome to the program. matt, let me start with you.
11:40 am
different than the one that is have come before it and what are the major takeaways? >> there's a major difference between this survey and the one that is come before it. this survey looks at how the defense budget is actually built. we aggregate the budget into ground forces, air forces, navel forces, much in the same way the pentagon engages the budget. it's actually the military services that are building it, that's why you see such ut:h0@6cj% going back for 40-plus years. it varies within 1.5% traditionally. we look at people to look at it in that same lens. we hope by doing so the results will be more applicable to a heated defense budget debate for the 2012 election and beyond. >> we also gave them more information about how much actually goes to defense. we showed them how much is spent relative to other items udget, as a percentage of gdp, as compared to the past, as compared to potential enemies. so they say all of these different comparison points. and we asked them, was that more or less than you expected
11:41 am
in that framework, and more of the time they said, oh, that's more than i expected. so that was important information that they got, no in every case do they have 0@6c% response, but overall their perception was, wow, this is more than i thought it would be. >> what were some of the key takeaways from this? what were some of the most groundbreaking findings that you -- >> certainly. one thing i saw and found especially remarkable is that preferences that responded expressed were similar to but stricter than the pentagon's strategy and spending plan. so you saw them making pg, overseas contingency operations account, also in the ground forces account that has serviced that campaign, more so than in air and navy. you saw some priority placed on special operations forces, more people were convinced by the need for those forces and they made smaller cuts in that area. and then also consistent with the pentagon's plan and the administration's plan, substantial cuts in the nuclear weapons program. ]]:hj9pá
11:42 am
that folks wanted more cuts -- cut deeply? >> there was. >> were there any major differences between how democrats looked at things, how republicans looked at things and how independents looked at things? >> well, generally democrats both parties did cut, and they did cut significantly. also when we presented arguments for and against cutting, what was really interesting was that majorities found both sides convincing, that we were trying to create a situation like they were sitting in a debate and they could hear both arguments. >> right. >> and they said, oh, that makes sense, we found that convincing, and then the arguments against, oh, yeah, that's convincing too. but when it came down to making want to do, both republicans and democrats made significant
11:43 am
cuts. >> but there were certain interesting cross currents in the poll. for example, i found on the employment, you know, if given the choice would you cut in order to save some of these unique defense jobs. on the one hand 54% wanted to preserve them, including a rather sizeable portion of 4kdv might want government employment cut. what are some other interesting sort of cross currents that you guys found in the course of the poll? >> well, clearly, again, i would emphasize how much commonality there was and the issue of the jobs was actually -- even though majority says that they found it convincing, that was actually the least convincing argument, and the d convincing was that there's a lot of waste in the defense budget. there were also differences in that republicans were more ready to cut benefits to military families in terms of
11:44 am
healthcare, tri-care and also in the form of compensation. >> let me ask matt a question. $0@6cj% major programs, for example, the joint strike fighter or the f-35 or the b-22 tilt rotor and other program? >> certainly. we learned that some of the most expensive programs are some of the most eyebrow raising, at least for the respondents in this survey. wjnu gy ovjws 5l%åá8wo,"lá ready to cut that program. one thing i would point out, a crosswalk between the programmatics and the strategy is that respondents were l to part ways with the next generation bomber, that the administration proposed last year, but they still expressed interest in keeping the bomber leg of the triad, so this would use existing platforms for that. that may be an example of how you see the nuclear preference expressed earlier in our survey play out. >> how is this received, both, you know, ôqgtagon,
11:45 am
up on the hill and in industry? >> we know that the hill especially is looking at what happens after the election. there's not been much action yet to replace sequester, but the parties are preparing their positions. we expect this to be influential in that reiterating the defense is on the table. one thing i would say to piggyback on what steven already remarked is that republicans and democrats but they both agree that defense is on the table. they've both made cuts, the degree was perhaps different. on the pentagon side, things are a little bit more opaque. they're not yet planning for sequester. it's not entirely clear how they feel about our survey results, but we do expect when they move into that cycle, secretary panetta is expecting that to happen this summer, this will be influential. ]0@6cj% positions immoveable, in the few seconds we've got left, or will they be evolutionary. >> we should emphasize without information you don't have a majority calling for cuts. it's when they do get information and to get a more complete picture.
11:46 am
that means the debate will be significant in terms of how this might affect public opinion on this. >> gentlemen, thanks very much for joining us. coming up, a look at a new film following [ male announcer ] olympic tennis players bob and mike bryan
11:47 am
do a lot of sending... and receiving. sending...and receiving. sending...and receiving. sending...and receiving. sending...and receiving. [ bob ] i got the tickets. [ male announcer ] and with citibank popmoney, it's even easier to keep sending...and receiving. let me get you back. no, it's on me. i insist. no way. yes way. well let me chip in. [ male announcer ] send money from one bank account to another, with citibank popmoney. easier banking. every step of the way.
11:48 am
a powerful new documentary offers an inside look at the surge in afghanistan. following a single platoon of marines from the moment they deploy through seven months of struggle in a remote combat outpost. company, 1st battalion, 2nd marine reej men which arrived in spring of 2012 with 150 men and seven armored vehicle. only 20 vehicles remain and one marine killed and many were discharged with traumatic brain injuries. robert hoadian is the professor of journalism at the university of richmond and an independent filmmaker who's a pulitzer- prize winning photographer and vietnam veteran and one of the
11:49 am
creators of this show. robert, welcome to the program. >> always good to be back here, vago. >> great to have you. why did you make this film and what did you learn about the afghanistan war in making it? >> well, one of the most important reasons i made this film is that such a small percentage of people in this country have somebody serving in the military. i wanted to make sure they understand what our young men and women go through when we send them off to a place like afghanistan. so i wanted to get as close and personal a look as i could. what i've learned over there is that no matter how skilled they are, how highly motivated, how well equipped, it is a mission fraught with endless frustrations and i'm not sure there ever was a solution, a path to victory over there. >> one of the other things that you highlight is how dramatically this war is different from other wars. it's a lot ,v$%zzmore violent t people think. even though the casualty rates are lower than they've been in other wars, especially in terms of fatalities, that's because of a very heavy investment in
11:50 am
antiied technologies and mine- resistent ambush vehicles, for example. but survival doesn't mean uninjured, does it? >> no, it doesn't. the signature wound of this war is the traumatic brain injury, when the brain actually bounces around inside the skull and guys in it, and if you listen to the fella who was the truck commander right afterwards, you'd think that he's okay. >> and we want to take a uij.é; >> did you lose consciousness? he came down -- w.qj
11:51 am
sure my driver was okay. after that wait for d.o.d. to get here. >> first time you've been blown up? >> no. >> how many other times? >> i've been blown up this is the second time. >> want to do it a third third time? no. no. it's not fun. >> and that -- have you managed to stay in such with the sergeant? >> he never returned to duty. there were three guys in the truck, two guys, russell and another w.$:uqke dito never returned to duty and they1 were rated recently 80% ñ8i&mçt disabled and recently discharged from the marines. ÷[ mission? do u making a difference or do they see this as a dangerous exercise in futility? >> that's a rank sensitive answer. the higher up the food scale you go, the more it looks like success, but the men and women who are actually on the ground
11:52 am
fighting it take a lot of pride in their skill and a lot of pride in what they have been able to accomplish. but in the end i think many of r futility. >> you spent two years in the vietnam war, one #l6?nnraej03=a photographer, the other one in the army with stars 4kdv you also covered many wars in between, you've covered iraq, you've covered afghanistan before. what are the similarities and what are the differences in these two wars? >> the similarities are pretty clear. i first went to vietnam in 1966. and at that time the military was pretty professional. wasn't filled with draftees yet. and so in some ways it looked a lot like the military today, people who joined because they wanted to and they were %ix 6cj% professional. =é
11:53 am
tanks, and, you know, the people in vietnam, our troops in vietnam didn't speak the language, weren't very familiar with the culture and troops in afghanistan for the .(g%tmost don't speak the language. one of the things that shocked me when i found out was how poor aó(nax did. and i didn't really -- >> you saw instances of that as you were editing the picture? >> yeah. i innocently enough just wanted to get it translated so i could do a verbatim translation of it and discovered what the people were telling the marines and what the interpreter was giving them were in many tá different. >> and in the 30 or so seconds we've pr5:e think that's for a lack of trying on the part of the military, i think they gave it their very best effort and their very best effort is very good indeed. but i think this is a war that just did not lend itself to that kind of solution. >> when are we going to start seeing the program? >> it'll be on pbs stations around the country at different time this is summer. if they go to thesurge.biz,
11:54 am
i'll get the schedule and post it. >> robert, thanks for joining us, we
11:55 am
11:56 am
five years ago the pentagon's air/sea battle or afd concept was the handful of strategists that wju)(pz:h0@6cj% navel and air forces must closer collaborate to fight feature enemies. today d.o.d. has an office to cooperates on new systems and concepts. service leaders also stress that air sea battle isn't named as china critics suggest, but allowing u.s. operations to to threaten american forces and so systems designed to constrain u.s. military effectiveness in
11:57 am
asia as beijing makes sweeping territorial claims and its military advances more quickly than washington expected. air sea battle is vital to developing new operational and deterrent concepts and driving truly joint war fighting that goes beyond allowing everybody to play equally in future crisis. key strengths and capabilities to deliver specific outcomes. merely applying the label to existing systems and doctrines won't work. indeed, without rigorous experimentation and prudent investment, air sea battle like transformation a decade ago will become regarded as a bumper sticker that's applied to everything but means nothing. thanks for joining us for "this week in defense news," i'm vago muradian. you can watch this program online at defensenewstv.com 4kdv vago@defensenewstv.com. i'll be back next week at the same time. until then, have a great week. [ mechanical humming ]
11:58 am
[ male announcer ] we began with the rx. ♪ then we turned the page, creating the rx hybrid. ♪ now we've turned the page again with the all-new rx f sport. ♪ this is the next chapter for the rx. this is the next chapter for lexus. this is the pursuit of perfection. this is the next chapter for lexus. i didn't quite know thiwhat to expect.our. i'd seen the images on tv, but until you're in the thick of it... anyway the guys in my unit who'd been here before, told me just ride it out, keep my head down and remember the reason i'm here. and we're paying for it all with my cashrewards card from navy federal. we're earning cash back! bring it. brought it.
11:59 am
brung. 4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union.

51 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on